Mitch Daniels will not seek the GOP nomination

[NYFelon]

Your first mistake is in thinking that the American electorate is a rational entity with a primary goal of expanding freedom for the people and reducing power of the federal government. When you quit making your suppositions from that point, you'll find it easy to see how Ron Paul has a snowball's chance in hell.

I abhor Paul's foreign policy platform. His approach is to pretend that if we don't poke the sleeping bear with a sharp stick, no harm will come to us. And really? A civilian court trial for bin Laden? Let's show those terrorists we mean business.

I must spread some rep before I can......

 

[melensdad]

And under the law of unintended consequences he alienated the right.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. I know many on the right, some on the very far right, none seem to care about this horrid omission to which you refer.

 

[bman1962]

I am so glad Mitch is not running as I could never vote for anyone with a comb-over as bad as his!!!!

I hate it but the GOP can't bring anyone forward that will beat obama. We are all very seriously screwed when Obama has nothing to lose in his second term.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm just curious, but how exactly do social conservatives benefit by having control over other people's lifestyles?

I'm not taking the bait. I'm not making a values judgment. Just stating the fact that Mitch is no friend of social conservatives.

Okay, so let me get this straight: Daniels, whom you dislike for a candidate is, was one of the stronger contenders for a national race, but the media will subject him to a grilling that will twist and turn every word he's ever said to make him look bad. Perry, on the other hand, whom you seem to favor above all others, would be immune to such media targeting, even though there is substantially stronger ammunition in linking Perry to Bush (even if the link is fabricated and weak) than in "spinning" Mitch's comment? Did I get that right?

FWIW, Mitch made his comment specifically to bring GOP voters together.

Mitch Daniels: Social Issues Truce Is Necessary To Keep The GOP United

And I'm not convinced that Daniels would have suffered all that greatly on the national scene either: Mitch Daniels and That Social Issues ‘Truce’ | Cato @ Liberty

In order to run for President in the general election you have to win the primary. That is a reality. The Republican primary goes through Socialissuesville. That is also a reality. Mitch would never have made that train.

I don't favor Perry over all others. Maybe over those currently running, only because those running right now are either undefined or damaged. The Republican that can beat Obama is not in the current field of candidates.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. I know many on the right, some on the very far right, none seem to care about this horrid omission to which you refer.

That's fine, we disagree. Doesn't matter. Mitch dropped out, and he's yesterday's news. The question is which candidate will the party coelesse around, and will that candidate be strong enough to defeat Obamagonnaneedajob? He will be wicked difficult to defeat in 2012. He's been expanding the free cheeseburger express, while Republicans are afraid to attack his record for fear of being called racist. No one cares about the deficit (by no one I mean the 52% that get free stuff from the other 48% of us); they care about their freebies, more importantly, that the deliver of their freebies not be interrupted.

 

[SSGSAD]

I wanted, to hear Donald Trump, say, bho, the people have spoken ;
YOUR FIRED !!!!!

 

[jmiller676]

I wish it was a Rick Perry and Bachman bid...my dreams though seem to be far fetched.

 

[hornadylnl]

What came first? The liberal politician or the liberal voter?

 

[jmiller676]

What came first? The liberal politician or the liberal voter?

Does it matter....

 

[hornadylnl]

Does it matter....

Well if we keep voting for more liberal politicians because they're "electable", what do you think the politicians will do? "Paul gets 3% of the votes with his views. McCain gets the nomination with his views. Should I model my politics after Paul or McCain?". Keep on voting for libs. Just don't be surprised that they get more liberal every election.

 

[jmiller676]

Well if we keep voting for more liberal politicians because they're "electable", what do you think the politicians will do? "Paul gets 3% of the votes with his views. McCain gets the nomination with his views. Should I model my politics after Paul or McCain?". Keep on voting for libs. Just don't be surprised that they get more liberal every election.

I agree with you, which is why I don't see it changing personally. Too many people feel entitled to things and think it should be "fair". It disgusting and frankly don't have much enthusiasm to vote anymore. They say do your duty and vote but, I can't vote because no candidates are worth it.

 

[hornadylnl]

I agree with you, which is why I don't see it changing personally. Too many people feel entitled to things and think it should be "fair". It disgusting and frankly don't have much enthusiasm to vote anymore. They say do your duty and vote but, I can't vote because no candidates are worth it.

It's like complaining about the food at the Greasy Spoon. Their food gives me food poisoning but I keep going back because the Choke and Puke gives me the screaming ****s. Here's a thought. How about finding a different restaurant that doesn't upset my stomach or just eat at home. But all my friends eat at the Greasy Spoon.

 

[photoshooter]

But the two main parties, The Progressives and the Federalists, have an ace up their sleeves:

VOTE FOR US, or the other guys win. Vote for the third party &THE OTHER GUYS win. Stay home and don't vote, and THE OTHER GUYS win.

It's called "scare-tactics" and it seems to work on those who don't like their party's choices.

 

[Wild Deuce]

Americans, by and large, don't want leaders. They want go-along-to-get-along inside types who won't rock the boat they're riding in. Most of the country enjoys their ambivalence towards how the state of things really are as long as they can shop their cares away, and make it home in time to catch whatever banal mind number is on the networks. Somehow liberty or death turned into freedom from caring so long as I'm placated with froofraws and suburban paradise. Anyone that might tell them the truth, that they WON'T be seeing social security, that they CAN'T continue to receive some kind of benefit, that it's THEM that has to sacrfice so the country can maintain solvency, well **** that guy right in the neck. We (editorially speaking) don't want that kind of person. We want more of the same, because the devil you know's better than the one you don't. Liberty is scary, and I can tell you that where I live....pretty much anyone that subscribes to true Constitutional ideas is seen as just a touch off key.

+1

One of the best posts I'll read today.

I have a friend at work who has consistently been a conservative thinker. He is fiscally conservative, more than just a moderate social conservative, pro gun, believes in judicial restraint, Bill of Rights kinda guy. The other day he tells me he's going to vote for Obama in 2012. After a long, silent pause from me, he goes on to tell me why. He says he has to because of the "war" that Republicans have launched against the working class .... Because if he doesn't vote for Obama, he (we) will lose his pension.

Present day politics can be summed up in one question .... "What's in it for ME?"

 

[Lucas156]

I see a dark future for the US. I will still vote but I'm 99% sure it won't matter. I'll vote for the candidate that is most in line with my views but like I said....it won't matter. Buh-bye USA nice knowin' ya.

 

[nicajack]

The upcoming election looks to me like another Clinton-Dole fiasco. The powers that run things from behind the scenes are setting up another 4 for Obama, by not running another candidate that is electable. They are even ready with another 92 scenario if necessary to assure his being in there.
As for the candidates not having any recognition, just where did Obama get recognition outside of Chicago? He was only a senator for a very short while and did nothing there. And then there was Clinton, who nobody had ever heard of outside of Arkansas....Recognition, my ass...
This is going to be a tweedle dee or dumb election as always. You can be whores and vote for the lesser of the evils if you want, but as always, I will vote my conscience for whoever is not a Dem-Pub. Will vote for Ron if on ballot, but no other republican schill. It is my opinion that the Amerikan people deserve the government they have, because of voting the morons in. I haven't voted for a Dem-Pub since Reagan. All others have been Libertarians or some other 3rd party. I will not be their whore....John

 

[Wild Deuce]

.... I will not be their whore....John

Hear, Hear!

Here's to not being a whore!

 

[Garb]

+1

One of the best posts I'll read today.

I have a friend at work who has consistently been a conservative thinker. He is fiscally conservative, more than just a moderate social conservative, pro gun, believes in judicial restraint, Bill of Rights kinda guy. The other day he tells me he's going to vote for Obama in 2012. After a long, silent pause from me, he goes on to tell me why. He says he has to because of the "war" that Republicans have launched against the working class .... Because if he doesn't vote for Obama, he (we) will lose his pension.

Present day politics can be summed up in one question .... "What's in it for ME?"

I have a friend who's the same way. I still can't believe people haven't woken up and smelled the s***. By the time they do, I'm afraid it will be too late.